Grarea wrote:....Not particularly macro, but with this one, I am thinking (afterwards) that a flash would have made for a better picture?I know it is not quite bang on (but pretend it were ).

We've all got many Macro-ish shots that are not quite there, but some of them still make enjoyable images. Flash may have frozen the movement in your shot and given a technically better photo but I like the colours, softness and the fact that the OOF background can still be seen (flash may have blackened the background)

Here's a "Note quite Macro" shot (it's taken with a 300mm & 2x converter) taken this morning - technically far from perfect but it pleases me

Just to add - this has been a really good thread - with some useful advice from users who have been will to share their experiences. I was going to reply earlier in the thread, but a helpful Irishman beat me to it with similar but more detailed advice

Yes, there are two parts to taking these photos for me.Well, three really. I enjoy looking at the creatures on the big screen, I find it interesting.I would like to improve my technique as well, it is always nice to get a 'good picture'.But mostly I am just having fun.

Hi guys, 2 really nice shots.You are both right, a technically brilliant shot is no guarantee of having a nice shot. Sometimes a shot stirs you, for no real reason other than it does.Grarea, its only by getting out and "messing" that i am learning, and i love to experiment, doesn't always work, but its usually fun

Here's one I had earlier rejected, as i had missed the intended focus point, Shaky hands and breeze, It wasnt until later that I noticed how much detail was in the wings. I like the detail but not the missed focus.

wow, nice one.Like you say, brilliant detail.You can only get one thing in focus generally.So clear. It depends what we mean by 'missed focus' doesn't it?Just because it is deemed correct that we get the eyes. Thanks for putting that up, it is really interesting.

Grarea wrote:wow, nice one.Like you say, brilliant detail.You can only get one thing in focus generally.So clear. It depends what we mean by 'missed focus' doesn't it?Just because it is deemed correct that we get the eyes. Thanks for putting that up, it is really interesting.

Yep, selecting what to focus can be difficult, then nailing it even more so!

Grarea wrote:wow, nice one.Like you say, brilliant detail.You can only get one thing in focus generally.So clear. It depends what we mean by 'missed focus' doesn't it?Just because it is deemed correct that we get the eyes. Thanks for putting that up, it is really interesting.

Yep, selecting what to focus can be difficult, then nailing it even more so!

If you can, use a tripod. Easier said than done but, for insects, take shots in the evening or early morning (not for me) when they are roosting. That way you can often find them quite still and welcoming, even. As the light is often a bit dimmer, there should be little breeze. Having said that, my hummingbird hawk moth shots were handheld, obviously.

I have loads, but these are just 2 examples. I used a K3 with a DFA 100 macro. No tubes, no other lenses. The camera was mounted on a macro rail on a tripod, the shots were manual focus, time delayed with a remote trigger.

The macro rail is more than useful, as you can set up the tripod at the maximum range you would like, take a shot, then just roll the camera closer on the rail and focus for a closer shot, without moving the whole setup. When you've done that, you can try moving the tripod closer if you feel confident enough, and do the same again. Note, I only use the time delay when there is now breeze at all, otherwise i use immediate shot because then I can see through the viewfinder when the insect is still.

I never use higher than ISO400.

You can see, on the 1st one, that I didn't quite get the right angle as the wings go a bit out of focus towards the edges.